The Ethics of Refusal - Essay Example

? Critical Thinking & Application Paper - Case Study I. Identification. The main ethical issue in the case study - Is it ethical to deny one a position they deserve such as a job due to their physical appearance? Does the same amount to fairness if it will avoid future conflict? Does the same amount to discrimination? Other equally weighty ethical issues have been raised in the case study which the committee members and anybody analyzing the situation needs to look into. Such issues are Is it ethical to hire Darrell and disregard the students’ views that have shown that they prefer the other applicants of the job to him and who have a right to be heard? Is it ethical to do the wrong thing if it will please the majority and ensure harmony? Does dismissing Darrell through a criterion that is ethically and professionally unacceptable, constitute an ethical decision if the committee members are doing the wrong in order to please the mass of student whose interests they are supposed to primarily serve? Is it ethical to sacrifice Darrell as some committee members opt to do for the sake of harmony within the school and to ensure that the previous situation whereby the lecturer was unpopular with the students was not witnessed again? Is it ethical to dispense the laid down hiring procedures and criteria of dismissal as some members opt to? Is it ethical to make a moral choice if it is likely to bring conflict in future? The main reason why the issue of hiring or failing to hire Darrell raises the case’ main ethical issue is because the article revolves around Darrell’s plight due to his physical appearance and how fair each decision made either to hire him or otherwise will be to him and to the students. This is because such a choice will most probably be guided by his looks and not his professional qualifications and capabilities as the ideal case should be. II. Research. (find at least three articles) Only complete articles should be chosen, not just abstracts of articles Article citation- Richards, J. &Lucas, J. R. (1985) Discrimination, Proceedings of the Aristotelian society. Supplementary volume 86, p.53-82 The case study is about unfair or discriminatory treatment on account of a condition that is not as a result of one’s personal choice. The article explores in depth the ills brought about by discrimination on various grounds. The article further looks into the issue of inevitable discrimination like when one is psychologically coerced to choose between a close relative and another qualified candidate in job recruitment or a person whom they share ideals like religious affiliation and another who they differ in the same. Blood being thicker than water, the decision maker is compelled to give the job to his relative. The author observes that even the society would expect him to act as such. In this case therefore, the other candidate is disqualified not on the basis of merit, for the fact that he is not related to the person in- charge of the recruitment. The article relates to the case study in that it provides an insight in discrimination in the recruitment process. Article citation- Agerstrom, J. & Rooth, D. (2011). The role of stereotypes in Real Hiring Discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology ,volume 96, p.790-805 This article is a study that looks into the discrimination that obese people in the hiring process. It further evaluates measures they take to counter such discrimination such as photo manipulation. The article further considers previous studies into discrimination and concludes that body weight is in fact a big source of prejudice against job- seekers. The article gives statistical facts on people disqualified for jobs in many fields for being obese. It relates directly with our case study as the case study gives one example where a person’s obesity is used as an index to judge whether he is qualified for the job or not. Article citation- Park, L. & Harwin, M. (2010) Visible versus non-visible rejection: Consequences of appearance-based rejection sensitivity. Journal of Research in Personality, volume 44. Retrieved from http://www.elsevier.com/ locate/ jrp Park and Harwin carry intensive studies of physical appearance based discrimination in this paper to statistically come up with the figures of people discriminated against because of their physical appearance. They further attempt to compare the numbers with those discriminated against on other basis. The study is deep and presented in simple forms that are easily observable and undestandable. The article goes further to explain the effects of such discrimination. It directs relates to the case study through the fact that both are concerned with discrimination. III. Analysis This section requires that you list at least 4 options and 3 stakeholders. You may list more options and/or stakeholders if you want. Stakeholders Options   Dismiss Darrell on demonstration score grounds. Hire Darrell and disregard the students’ views. Dismiss by random choice. Vote by committee members to decide who to dismiss.   Committee members They risk burdening their conscience for making a discriminative choice. They may earn the students’ wrath and risk another ugly incident at school. Their conscience remains clear. Their conscience remains clear as each will vote as they feel best.   Darrell His right to equality is violated and he is denied a job he is qualified for His rights are not violated and he gets a job he fairly deserves. Whether picked or not picked, his rights are not violated. He stands an equal chance to be hired as the others. He stands an equal chance of being hired hence he is not discriminated.   Students Their opinion are considered and appreciated hence they will identify with the choice made. Their opinion is disregarded and hence they will be discontented with the choice. They may or may not be contented with the choice made. They may or may not be contented with the choice made.     A. Apply one (1) consequential theory (Act Utilitarianism) 15pts. ACT UTILITARIANISM  Paragraph 1 Describe what your first theory is about.  Utilitarianism is a normative ethics theory that claims that overall happiness is maximized by taking the most proper course of action. Act utilitarianism is a theory of this credited to John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, two classical ethics philosophers. The theory suggests that the value of an act’s measure is also the amount by which happiness (utility) is increased. An act should be preferred to the alternatives according to its extent of achievement in comparison to its alternatives projected achievement. An action is therefore considered good or bad according to the proportion to the amount of increment or reduction of general happiness it causes in comparison to the amount which could have been achieved if a different course of action was taken. Act utilitarianism does not only stress on utility, but also in the ideal that each individual action should be primarily be used for ethical evaluation. This is in contrast with other indirect utilitarianism varieties. Bottom of Form  Paragraph 2 Find the steps in applying the theory in the text and follow the steps in order to find the best solution to the main ethical problem. Step 1: Identify the ethical decision to be made.           There are various ethical decisions to be made. The committee has to decide whether it is ethical to deny one a position they deserve such as a job due to their physical appearance. They will also have to decide if it is ethical to hire Darrell and disregard the students’ views that have shown that they prefer the other applicants of the job to him and who have a right to be heard. Another ethical issue they have to look into is if it’s ethical to do the wrong thing if it will please the majority and ensure harmony. They will also have to decide if dismissing Darrell through a criterion that is ethically and professionally unacceptable, constitutes an ethical decision if they are doing the wrong in order to please the mass of student whose interests they are supposed to primarily serve. They will also have to decide if it is ethical to dispense of the laid down hiring procedures and criteria of dismissal. Step 2: Consider all possible optional actions.            Dismiss Darrell on demonstration score grounds. Since all the candidates are equally qualified, Darrell can be dismissed on the account that he scored lower than others in the students’ rating than the others. Alternatively, the committee can hire Darrell and disregard the students’ views if they feel that he is the best man for the job. The committee could also dismiss one of the candidates by random choice whoever the candidate may be since all candidates are equally qualified. Another option is for the committee members to vote as each is directed by their conscience and evaluation of each of the candidates’ performance. Step 3:  Consider all people affected by these optional responses.    Stakeholders Options   Dismiss Darrell on demonstration score grounds. Hire Darrell and disregard the students’ views. Dismiss by random choice. Vote by committee members to decide who to dismiss.   Committee members 5 5 10 10   Darrell -10 10 5 5   Students 10 -10 5 5   Key 10- very happy 5-happy 0-satisfied -5 -unhappy -10 –very unhappy Step 5:  Choose and follow the option that produces the highest net utility. Two options tie for the highest net utility- a vote by the members and a random choice among the candidates.  Two options tie for the highest utility- a vote by the members and a random choice among the candidates. This is because they are not discriminative and the consciences of members remain clear. B. Apply one (1) non-consequential theory Kantian Ethics, Contractarianism, Natural Rights, Natural Law or Virtue Ethics) 15 pts. Natural Law Ethics The natural law is a theory developed by classical Greek philosophers, most notably Plato and Aristotle. The theory however was independently described by ancient Chinese philosophers over a thousand years before the Europeans philosophers did. Later philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, Samuel von Pufendorf, Richard Hooker, Francisco Suarez, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Francis Hutcheson, Emmerich de Vattel and Jean Jacques Burlamaqui. The theory has been extensively used in development of modern laws as well as for formulation of many important legal publications such as a the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The natural law, alternatively referred to as the law of nature is a system of law purportedly determined and controlled by nature, and hence universal. In classical terms the law refers to using reason to analyze social and personal human nature and consequently deduce binding rules of morality. Natural law is has deep contrast with the common legislation also referred to as positive law of any political community, nation-state, or society and is used as a basis for critique of positive law. The Liberal natural law which is currently taken to be the natural law though there are other approaches to the same. The Liberal natural law states that all men are born equal and they have some natural rights with which they are born including the rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (Cobert, 2009). The theory also identifies several universal human values including love, truth, right conduct and non violence. These are characteristics that make any human being kind, caring, and noble Paragraph 2- Use the "Steps in Applying" for Natural Law Ethics to determine the best solution to your problem. Step 1 - Consider all possible optional actions. Dismiss Darrell on demonstration score grounds. Since all the candidates are equally qualified, Darrell can be dismissed on the account that he scored lower than others in the students’ rating than the others. Alternatively, the committee can hire Darrell and disregard the students’ views if they feel that he is the best man for the job. The committee could also dismiss one of the candidates by random choice whoever the candidate may be since all candidates are equally qualified. Another option is for the committee members to vote as each is directed by their conscience and evaluation of each of the candidates’ performance . Step 2 - Evaluate each option to see if it violates or interferes with any of the universal human goods. None of the options in the case study threatens human life or health hinders procreation fails to promote the interests of children, promotes ignorance or deteriorates human relationship. Option 1 and two fail to consider a person or persons’ interests. It therefore follows that options 1 and 2 violate a human good. Step 3 - Eliminate all options that clearly violate one or more universal human goods. Option 1- Dismissing Darrell due to the students’ opinions and option 2- hiring him in complete disregard of the students’ views are dismissed. Step 4 - Any options remaining are morally permissible. The remaining morally permissible choices are random picking and voting by the committee members. V. Decision Making The most ethical decision is to let the committee members vote on who to eject. This is because the option allows the members to listen to their conscience and act as each feels morally right. The decision also ensures that each of the candidates has a chance of being hired and also of ejection. The decision created the biggest net utility to stakeholders. This means that it is the most viable under the act Utilitarianism. It also proved to be the best alongside random selection under natural law and propagation of universal goods. VI. Evaluation (identifying at least 3 arguments against your decision from Part V and defending your decision against them.) The ethical issue was what the committee should do in the case study. My answer was that the matter should be put to a vote. It is arguable that the process may fail to be fair as the individual opinions may be biased. The majority opinion is not always right. To justify this is an argument that voting allows members to achieve what they would not achieve via a consensus decision. One would argue that there may be a tie ending the process right where it started- The justification in this case would be that the probability of a tie in the vote is quite slim and in case of a tie an unofficial member of the committee who has witnessed the process or who has been furnished with details of the proceedings may be invited to vote. 3. List a third possible counterargument against your decision in Part V – Now defend your decision against this counterargument. Voting discourages the unity of the committee and makes some members fail to identify with the decision reached. In defense to this counterargument, one may argue that voting makes each individual member feels that their opinion is appreciated and that it can make a difference VII. Reflection - Format is at least 1 good paragraph This paragraph focuses all on you, your thinking process while doing this paper. DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE. Instead, explain what you learned from this particular assignment and the critical thinking process. Discuss different factors, like personal assumptions and biases that you had when you started the paper. Did you remain neutral (not taking a position one way or the other) throughout the analysis and application sections? Or did you have a preconceived idea of what decision you would make prior to writing the paper? How did you handle any preconceived ideas or biases? How could you improve your problem-solving process or your critical thinking when faced with an ethical issue? Section VII. Reflection In the course of the case, I learnt the importance of making a decision after conclusively passing through each of the steps of critical thinking. I learnt how a wrong decision may bring unhappiness to those involved. Before I started writing this paper, I was unaware of instances when physical looks and obesity in specific can lead to discrimination. The paper opened my eyes to have a wider focus on the world we are living in. Through this paper, I learnt that sometimes we make discriminative decisions unconsciously. I also learnt that to decide correctly needs more than just one’s feelings over the issue. I reflected in my earlier decisions and identified instances where I had made such erroneous and discriminatory decisions. A right decision has the highest net happiness and leaves all those involved with clear consciences. I can conclude that the lessons I learnt will be invaluable in my future decisions. Clearly this is one of the most interesting and mind stimulating practical cases I have encountered. References Richards, J. &Lucas, J. R. (1985) Discrimination, Proceedings of the Aristotelian society. Supplementary volume 86, p.53-82 Agerstrom, J. & Rooth, D. (2011). The role of stereotypes in Real Hiring Discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology ,volume 96, p.790-805 Park, L. & Harwin, M. (2010) Visible versus non-visible rejection: Consequences of appearance-based rejection sensitivity. Journal of Research in Personality, volume 44. Retrieved from http://www.elsevier.com/ locate/ jrp   Read More